After replying with a strongly worded email, the Marine Corps decided to prosecute him and separate
him from the IRR with an Other Than Honorable
Discharge. He could have ignored the letter of
notification, but instead chose to exercise his right to challenge the decision in a hearing.

Interesting. It occurs to me if he has the right to say what he pleases, then the Marine Corp has the right to discharge him as they please.

which is why they started to backpedal so furiously when they called his bluff

The marine was in the IRR, not the reserves, who cant protest or wear uniforms while doing it, not the active duty, who cannot protest and wear uniforms while doing it nor retired, who cannot protest and wear uniforms while doing it. He was in the IRR, individual ready reserve, honorably discharged WAR VETERAN.

The contract isn't one way.

JOIN THE MARINES, RISK YOUR LIFE LOOSE YOUR RIGHTS - EVEN AFTER YOU ARE HONORABLY DISCHARGED.

I think you were discharged from active duty. You remained in the IRR for a period of time.. Two years rings a bell. If they had called you back, I think you would have been discharged at the end of those two years..

Most of this is just speculation, which the Internet is very good at. My HOPE is they just let him wallow in his own acts.

You might find it interesting to know that Burkett was the CBS's source for the questionable documents. You can see why he might be a little bitter and why he might have an axe to grind.

So you condone passing forged documents as a pay back for what you believe is a wrongful act against you?? Wow

And you still claim "questionable?"

One of those, Marian Carr Knox, the secretary to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian who was Bush's immediate commander in the TANG, told CBS that she believes the documents are fake but that they reflected the sentiments of Kilian. "I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct".

The secretary of the group says she didn't type them and believes them fake. Of course they must be accurate, even if they are fake. Trust me. The check's in the mail. It's only a cold sore. The Beamer is paid for. I'm from headquarters and I'm here to help youu. ;-)

Fake but accurate...

BTW - When Bush joined TANG there were plenty of openings for PILOTS, but none for non-pilots and enlisted. At that time F102's were in Vietnam and the expectation was that all F102 squadron's would go. The war changed, no bombing attacks were made by China or North Vietnam and interceptors were not needed.

And the guy who was so forgiving in 1992 well...

In the 1992 campaign, Mr. Kerry, who has equated Mr. Bush's National Guard service to running away to Canada, took to the Senate floor to denounce Republicans who questioned candidate Bill Clinton's draft record. Mr. Kerry said it was time to stop re-examining how people did or did not serve during the Vietnam War. Mr. Clinton has never served in the military. As a university student, Mr. Clinton wrote a letter to the commander of the Reserve Officers Training Corps at the University of Arkansas, expressing a "loathing" for the military.

As a close, I note that you claim:

Griffin, as a Rove protégée, is in the direct linage of Republican political operatives that go back to Lee Atwater who was Rove's men

Do you have any proof showing Griffin is this evil person you claim? Or is it just a smear?

she only said she didn't type them but said they were accurate. and the typeface in question did exist at the time, putting the lie to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders' contention and main reason that they couldn't be real.

They assert a military unit would not have had top of the line equipment, so the documents are forged.
I clearly remember sitting in the HQ of the 70th Training Division in Livonia, Michigan, preparing similar documents on an IBM typewriter in Times New Roman, proportionately spaced, around 1979. [Fortunately, W wasn't in this unit. Or was he? If so, I never saw him.] At that time the Army wouldn't give us electronic typewriters at all, so we brought in our own for weekend drill. As an aspiring young lawyer I brought in my IBM ballprinter, which I had purchased used. The Bush documents could have been typed on my used typewriter. That typewriter is seared in my memory.

Well, it's a little late in the conversation but I'll post a few responses.

I'm not impressed by someone who doesn't even try to stretch a little to get the point. You infer that I'm "condoning" using false documents as a means of revenge when I'm doing no such thing. I was merely pointing out that Burkett had a motive that could have led to CBS becoming ensnared in a story based on phony documents. The documents didn't originate with Burkett. There were others that knew of his battles with the TANG and funneled either copies or re-creations of the original documents to Burkett knowing he would get them out - or so seems to be the case.

There remains some uncertainty about the documents given the Thornburg commission opinion on one hand and Marian Knox on the other - something you seem unable to stretch to understand. The documents are either real or very realistic copies of the originals complete with accurate content. What other possibility exists? You question whether the documents can be fakes yet contain true information. Why is that so hard to believe? If they are fakes, isn't it possible that someone familiar with the situation recreated documents that reflect what actually happened? That's exactly what Marian Knox suggests and who would be better positioned to know? Evidently you'd rather believe what you're told by someone like Shawn Hannity or Fox News.

If Bush had used influence to get into the guard despite atrocious test scores (25 out of a possible 100 on the pilot aptitude test) and DUI and other tickets that would have disqualified him, and then gone on to shirked his service as the record indicates and then have superiors in the unit put pressure on his commander to "sugarcoat" his record, and then had his flunkies purge his records while he was governor as Burkett witnessed, don't you think there were some who were eager to see this little phony, two-bit, lying hypocrite brought down? Isn't that what he deserves?

I'm bored with someone who spouts talking points and fails to do any work to provide credible details. For example, you say Kerry made disparaging remarks about Bush's service during the Viet Nam War but no example of this. I'm sure you're wrong. I've never heard of Kerry putting Bush's service down. Others did - and they SHOULD have but not Kerry.

And you mention Kerry defending Clinton's lack of service. Again, no details. Maybe he did but, again, he's not guilty of a double standard because he never personally attacked Bush's record. And Clinton did what a lot of very patriotic Americans did at the time; he spoke out against the war and did what he could to avoid going. Perfectly patriotic response. Give him credit for not getting suckered into a quagmire like a lot of people were.

And, what if Clinton did despise the military as you say? Who's worse, someone like Clinton who protested the war and stood on principal against the war or someone like Bush who was for the war but created a niche for himself that avoided going to Viet Nam? You've apparently given Bush a free pass for messing with the system (by using family influence to get into the guard and then failing to fulfill his guard obligation), why not Clinton? Wouldn't that be consistent? Who's guilty of a double standard? Sounds like YOU.

Yes, the TANG could have been deployed as my unit was (F-100's used for close ground support), but it was highly unlikely given their mission. I remember at no time a discussion of having to defend our forces against Chinese or North Vietnamese planes using an aging interceptor like the F-102. You sound like you have other information but, again, you don't provide any credible reference and, again, you lack credibility based on what I've seen so far.

OK, I'm tired of the task of educating you. You're on your own from here. I suggest doing at least A LITTLE work before you fire from the lip next time.

Andres Izarra, former news manager at RCTV. He served as Venezuela's former communications minister under President Chavez. He is now president of TeleSUR, a multinational satellite network.

and

Francisco Rodríguez, assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at Wesleyan University, and former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly.

Not much is resolved as both argue their positions. Izarra saying RCTV was not shut down, but its license revoked due to its role in the 2002 coup.

There is no political -- how do you say that? -- punishment being imposed on RCTV because of their editorial line. In fact, 78% of the concessions in VHF in Venezuela are in private hands, most of them aligned with the opposition. 82% of the concessions in the UHF spectrum are also in private hands, also most of them aligned with the opposition. So what we have here, again, is just an administrative procedure that is being used with political purpose to advance another coup d'etat. There's another coup d'etat effort on the way in Venezuela, just like we had in the past.

I must remind you, the sixty-four days of oil sabotage that happened in our country, where the oil elite stopped oil production in Venezuela, supported by this private media. I must remind you that RCTV broadcast during sixty-four days thousands and thousands of TV spots, not commercials, only political messages, to take out of the government a legitimate and democratically elected government. If you have such an irresponsible operator doing what RCTV has been doing in our country for over five years, that license would be revoked immediately. If you have a private media being involved in the coup d'etat, like you had it happening in Venezuela, you would see, for sure, that channel taken off the air in the United States and its owners being put in jail.

And Rodriguez arguing that, in fact, the gov't is restricting free speech.

So, effectively, what the government is doing is that it's using licenses and it's using a set of other economic means, such as foreign exchange allegations, blacklisting of government opponents -- the government has published a list of 3.5 million people who signed the recall referendum against them, against the government, to intimidate them -- and it's using all of these means to try to quash out dissent in Venezuela. I think that's what's happening. And basically, I think we're looking at the breakdown of democracy in Venezuela.

Was that Chavez's motivation [you say abuse, I'll show you abuse] , or was it fear?

If by fear you mean Chavez's fear of a coup by right-wing wealth holders in Venezuala, then I would say he was motivated by fear or security and the protection of a democratically elected gov't. But, I am not sure. It is just a hunch and I base it on the previous coup attempt in 2002.

If by fear you mean that Chavez is projecting fear and wishes to scare those who challenge him, then you question does not offer a choice as you intended, since it is not an either/or question, but a statement that Chavez is an authoritarian. THis might be true, but again, I have my doubts.

Washington, DC: Former Marine Sergeant Adam Kokesh is embroiled in a conflict that could have major
implications for the free speech rights of veterans especially recent Vets who are in the Inactive Ready Reserve. Kokesh is facing an administrative hearing for his anti-war activities but recognizing the high stakes the military has offered a plea bargain. In response, Kokesh rejected the offer saying it risks the free speech right of vets and allow you to silence the voices of those whose experiences are most relevant in the most pressing debate before the nation.

Adam Kokesh was deployed to Fallujah and received an honorable discharge last November. Since then, he has become active with the national organization, Iraq Veterans Against the War. After participating in Operation First Casualty, a demonstration at which he wore parts of his utility uniform, he received a warning from Major Whyte, an active duty Marine Corps Major who had been assigned to investigate the incident. After replying with a strongly worded email, the Marine Corps decided to prosecute him and separate
him from the IRR with an Other Than Honorable
Discharge. He could have ignored the letter of
notification, but instead chose to exercise his right to challenge the decision in a hearing.
The implications of this hearing may be far reaching, as the prosecution of a member of the inactive reserves under these circumstances is unprecedented. At stake is the right of freedom of speech for the hundreds of thousands of members of the Inactive Ready Reserve, as well as the nation's right to get the unbiased truth out of Iraq. Last week, the prosecuting attorney, Captain Sibert, offered Kokesh a general discharge. To accept this would be to allow the Marines to say that members of the IRR do not have freedom of speech, so naturally, he declined.

Adam Kokesh is represented by Mike Lebowitz and Eric Seitz.

The release is not on our chapter website yet, but this is at the National VFP site.

But Kokesh did comply with his contract. He served well and honorably (unlike the pencil pushers that put him in Iraq).

Then after he is well and truly Honorably discharged, he did what any US citizen has the constitutional right to do, and you prate on about his contract which he fulfilled already as an excuse for his DD214 to be changed to DD? Are you really that obtuse?

he can. however, until that happens, he's not active duty or reserve, and thus, i'm not sure he actually falls under the purview of the UCMJ. this is going to be the linchpin of the military's case against him.

i'd be curious to see the contract where it states that he is subject to the UCMJ, even if he isn't activated.

One of the more wonderful articles on Jimmy Wales, to yet be found, is at Reason now.

In this modern day of right-wing psychosis running epidemic in the land, examples of reason and logic that persist, such as Wikipedia, (despite the enormous forces elsewhere to disrupt and discredit science and arts), shine as brilliant beacons to what mankind may one day safely be.

As I write this, "Today's featured article", in Wikipedia is "Smells Like Teen Spirit":

"Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a song by American rock band Nirvana, and the opening track and lead single from the band's 1991 breakthrough album Nevermind. Written by Kurt Cobain, Krist Novoselic, and Dave Grohl and produced by Butch Vig, the song uses a verse-chorus form where the main four-chord riff is used during the intro and chorus to create an alternating loud and quiet dynamic.

I remember driving over 50 miles round-trip just to buy that CD, back then.

The "On this day" Wikipedia today links to:

The Godiva Procession, a commemoration held in honour of Lady Godiva's naked ride on horseback (pictured) through the streets of Coventry, England in protest against her husband's treatment of the citizens, began.

Of course, in this day-and-age of a right-wing climate of epidemic psychosis, Lady Godiva's naked ride in civil disobedience might be punished far more brutally than that, say, received by Rosa Parks when she stood up (or sat down) in civil disobedience for civil rights.

i don't know that bernstein's "on" to anything, having not read the book. the point i was making is that, contrary to jeralyn's assertion, it's beginning to look, taken as a whole, that it's a much fairer representation of ms. clinton, than the other book.

tell you what, i can take multiple quotes from the bible or the koran, and make both look horrible, because of lack of context.

on the other hand, there are plenty of reasons for failing other than not being smart. Some people have "test anxiety" and don't perform well on tests. Some people take it too lightly or overestimate themselves and don't study hard enough the first time. Some law schools prepare people better than others. (Surprisingly, some elite schools are not known for preparing students well for the bar --or the practical aspects of practicing law, for that matter).

I know plenty of good lawyers who failed the bar exam the first time and plenty of bad ones who passed.

Another thing, is that while you don't need to be particularly bright to be a lawyer, I'd venture to say the "average" intelligence of lawyers is higher than the average intelligence of elected odfficials. I'd also speculate that very few of the "brightest" lawyers are in politics.

I've never felt either of the Clintons ever showed intelligence that would be above the norm in any field with relatively high standards, but they are politicians so they probably are well above the norm there.

Most are something other than lawyers. Proportionally, as an occupation, lawyers almost certainly have the highest representation among elected officials (although the generic "business" might be close these days.)

Only 3 of the 11 Presidents in the post-war era have been lawyers (Nixon, Ford and Clinton). Less than half the U.S. Senators are lawyers. Somewhat over 1/3 of House members are lawyers.

Historically, there were more lawyers getting elected than in recent history, but it is a myth that most elected officials are lawyers.

... but of the first 20 senators alphabetically at least 11 were lawyers (some, like Lamarr Alexander, didn't admit to it.) That = most, in the sample. A few others were doctors, but I guess that doctors also don't work in 'a field with relatively high standards.'

BTW, here's the list:Tennessee's history of U.S. Senators is replete with statesmen who earned law degrees including U.S. Sens. Lamar Alexander, Fred Thompson, and Howard Baker.
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Cardin
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton

but as he began practicing the same year he graduated from law school, it would seem likely he passed the first time. Most graduates take the exam in July and are admitted in the Fall. Those who fail have to take the exam again and then would not be admitted until the winter of the following year at the earliest.

One thing to remember is that different jurisdictions have different standards. Most (maybe all now, I don't keep up) require passing the Multi-state exams (1 is multiple choice and 1 is essay, but the passing score on the multi-state varies from state to state. Many states also require passing state exams that are different from state to state. There are also all sorts of variations where some states average scores or only require passing the state portion if the multi-state score is below a certain level (but above the minimum established in that state), etc.

Obviously, failing a bar exam is at the least embarassing and at the worst can cost people a job opportunity. (although almost everyone eventually passes and finds a job) Nowadays cram courses for bar are a big business and a lot of kids (or their employers) pay a lot of money for bar prep courses.

However, my sister is an attorney, who passed her Bar Exam on the first try, and was told that it was unusual in California for that to happen. I know good attorneys who had to try more than once.

As you said, different districts have different standards, and given Mr. Gonzales' obvious legal incompetence, if he got through on the first try, it was a multiple choice test with one question: "What day is it?"

it would hardly seem unusual. This is the same type of fallacy as "most higher elected officials are lawyers." A lot of people do fail the bar exam and a lot of politicians are lawyers-- so people start exaggerating and generalizing.

Senators come from a variety of occupational backgrounds. Fifty-six hold degrees in the law
[...]
A number come from various business backgrounds and seven have MBAs. There are four doctors serving in the senate: two M.D.'s and two veterinarians.

And of course none of those fields 'have high standards for intelligence.'

I will repeat again.
I stated that I do not believe that the Clintons would stand out in any field with relatively high standards and that I do not believe that, generally, the lawyers one finds in elective office are the brightest lawyers. I would broaden that to say that I don't think politicians are often the brightest in whatever field from which they come.

If YOU want to believe our politicians are generally very bright people,. go right ahead. it's probably less delusional than 99% of what you seem to believe.

**

7 "110th Congress: Statistically Speaking," p. 76. In the overwhelming majority of previous
Congresses, business has followed law as the dominant occupation of Members. In the 110th
Congress, 220 Members (162 Representatives, 58 Senators) list their occupation as law, 205
Members (174 Representatives, 31 Senators) list public service/politics, and 193 Members (166
Representatives, 27 Senators) list business. Eighty-eight Representatives and 14 Senators list
education as a profession. Members often list more than one profession when surveyed by
Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
(I will note that 220 is less than half of 535. therefore, lawyers do not make up a majoority of Congress. As I previously noted only 3 of 11 residents in the posrt-war era have been lawyers.)